Yes I am woke . I know I am woke. How do I know I am woke ? Well I learned my lessons from the Kavanaugh hearings that a women ;no matter how uncredible she may be ;when she makes a charge ,she is to be believed .

So I have been listening to the Dem static the last few days . White ,Blonde hair blue eyed ,1/1024th native American Elizabeth Warren made the claim that Bolshevik Bernie told her in a conversation that he did not believe that a women could win the Presidency (a very unwoke thing to say) . He denied it last night . But I know that regardless of the lack of evidence backing the claim . If the oppressed women makes the charge ;she has to be believed .

Yes oppressed . The Democrats have been working for years to enlarge the pie of the oppressed in this country . Well what is inevitable is becoming the reality . When you have so many oppressed ,you have to expand the pie of the oppressor . It can't be all white conservative males . What is happening to the Dems is what was bound to happen . Some of them despite their best intentions have become the oppressors .

You think not ? Tell me then ;why is it that the Democrat field has now shrunk to almost no people of color ? (Deval Patrick being the last hold out even though he has zero chance ) . The last hope of racial diversity ,Senator Spartacus dropped out this week . There are a couple of women left . Sen Any Klobuchar is hanging in on the hope someone sees her as a VP . Senator Warren is the only real legit women candidate but she is competing with Bolshevik Bernie for the commie vote .So they pulled the gender card on each other . You know where I stand . She's the victim ;she's the woman ,by definition she aint lying . Touchy feely Joe Biden won't survive . Once Warren takes out Bernie ,there will be a relentless assault on him. The gay mayor from the little town of South Bend ,who spent some time in an Army clerks office poses a unique challenge . It will be Warren's task to walk on egg shells dealing with him lest he becomes the victim to her oppression.

Eventually they all become oppressors . You don't think so ? AOC ;one of the most woke people on the planet supports the oppressor Bernie . She is also an oppressor in her own way . She recently obtained a full breed French Bull dog as a pet . Me ;I think everyone should adopt a pet . I have had up to 3 rescues in my home at any given time . I adopt them from the shelter . I have never been disappointed . I have loved every one of them . I still have 2 ;I've buried 6 after the vet advise that it would be cruel to continue treating them .

But you see ;AOC made the fatal error of getting a full breed dog ;probably not from a shelter . PETA tagged her for what she is ;an oppressor . How dare she not get a mutt from the local shelter !!! To make matters worse ; AOC ,if she was woke ,would know that adopting a pet bred to be sold is harmful to the environment . She is doubly an oppressor because she decided to create her own pollical PAC (oh the horrors after she railed against money in politics ) . To make matters even worse than that ;she decided to become a greedy capitalist and will not share her wealth with the DNC . This should be a capital offense in the new woke world .
How is a new woke person like me supposed to manage in a world where the oppressor and the oppressed are one in the same ?

Hello Tom, glad you're woke, though you have no experience being the oppressed, it's not that easy and takes practice. I mean you first have to acknowledge your oppressors don't give a rats patoot about your oppression, and will be down right insulted if you protest, because it's for your own good, to make you better. Hard to grasp that concept? No worries it freaks out everybody who is oppressed. Get use to it, as you'll hear it an awful lot and if ye doth protest to much the oppressor can be downright indignant and do something to correct your ungrateful arse and trust me you ain't gonna like it not one bit! Plus does no good unless you can be lost in a huge crowd. So when they look at you crazy, and they certainly will, I advise you shut the hell up smile and slink sullenly away and imbibe heavily on your spirit of choice or get some good dope to ease the pain, but don't get caught, because you're going to hell, or worse you get the pull your lazy arse up by your own bootstraps sermon, which trust me is worse than hell.

No, oppressors NEVER expand the pie so get used to catching crumbs that they trickle down while they engorge themselves on the biggest piece of the pie and don't forget to at least look grateful and say thanks massa! NOT Master, but massa. Best practice that in a mirror. Never forget it's THEIR pie and they cut it as THEY please and least you forget they worked darn hard to EARN it! You will hear that an awful lot too.

Lastly take a look around at all the other oppressed folks who made it out of oppression by telling the oppressor what they want to hear most, "You da man!". Be ready to kiss buttocks at this point and plenty of it, because oppressors always have friends they like to impress with how many butt kissers and brown nosers they collect to show how great of an oppressor they are. Now you don't have to swallow your pride, just spit it in a hankie for later when you can kick the dog when you get home.

I hope this helps my friend because being oppressed is not as easy as some make it look. Got questions?

Man!, Tom! you have nailed it. Anyone who dares to deny a woman a chance to rule over us is an oppressor. The power behind the throne, the power that rules the world from the cradle wants real power, the power to use the ultimate weapon and force compliance.

Man!, Tom! you have nailed it. Anyone who dares to deny a woman a chance to rule over us is an oppressor. The power behind the throne, the power that rules the world from the cradle wants real power, the power to use the ultimate weapon and force compliance.

What they're trying to get a nuke or something Clete?

You see Warren's experiences entitled her to use a program to lift up people who had a claim of historic oppression to advance her own ambitions . And Bernie went to a Kibbutz but determined that hard work was too hard . So he took those socialists ideas like the pigs in 'Animal Farm' and used them to his advantage . And AOC also speaks that great socialist hypocrisy well While she cashes in she decries the influence of dark money in politics . Yes I "
acknowledge those oppressors don't give a rats patoot about us" even though they say they do . And yes their good intentions cannot be questioned . They can't help it if they are doing well by doing good . It's just the unintended consequences they did not anticipate .

Remember the 70's sayings "we have to use what we got to get what we want", and "by any means necessary"? Looks like our generation has grown up. Or is this the last hurrah?

PS

Tigers won. LUCKY YOU!

PS

Tigers won. LUCKY YOU! lol my bold prediction .

You guys have the attention span of a gnat

You must mean Tom, because I'm a BIGBOY. Why couldn't you have said we are just multi faceted in our intellectual approach? 80

Paraclete: Don't know about Aussie gnats but the "NO SEE'EM GNATS" of Coastal South Carolina are some of the most focused and high attention span vermin in the world: they don't relent until they have flown off with a piece of your arse!....and they are fanged!!!

My favorite team is the NY Gnats .

http://www.scorebook.com/ug/000032428.gif

I don't know usually when someone like me declares themselves woke ,it is usually a sign of weakness . Look at the other Senator from my State Kristen Gillibrand .She campaigned on wokeness ;took up the mantle of women victimhood . Then in the spirit of wokeness she declared herself a
“white woman of privilege”.She became a victim the minute she declared that and soon dropped out of the race .

Then there is Beto .He declared himself woke and took up the LGBTQ alphabet soup cause saying he would end tax exempt status for churches that would not recognize homosexual marriage . He instantly became the victim and dropped out( btw tax exempt status for all religious institutions should be ended ...but not for the reason he championed ) . Kamala Harris made a name for herself as an oppressor in the state Justice Dept . Then she got woke and that doomed her candidacy. She could not decide what part of her diverse back round was oppressor or victim. Now Joe Biden is an oppressor .He knows it ,we know it ,everyone knows it . He makes many politically incorrect statements ;he's a serial groper (
“I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified,” former Nevada Assemblywoman (and current Bernie Sanders supporter) Lucy Flores wrote
. “He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn't process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused.”)
,and he is as corrupt as the day is long . He hardly even tries to hide it . He has groomed his son to be an oppressor too. He is definitely not woke … and he will win the Democrat nomination easily .

So the race is down to two?

I get it Tom, you JUST woke up and realized, or will realize you have rat race burn out! Take a long vacation or retire to Texas and get some shorts and clogs. Sunglasses mandatory!

the NY Slimes is struggling with it's wokeness .

Several studies have shown

that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty.Depictions of female candidates as calculating or conniving are political mainstays. As long ago as 1984, opponents launched “authenticity” attacks against Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to appear on a major party’s presidential ticket. This pattern endures regardless of who is telling the truth, these studies conclude, and regardless of either candidate’s intentions. If voters conclude that Ms. Warren is lying, it is most likely to hurt her more than it will hurt Mr. Sanders if voters conclude that he is lying.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/us/politics/sanders-warren-debate-handshake.html

Fascinating your assertion that after centuries of male domination how all of a sudden women are oppresors, though for the last few decades they have been asserting themselves more and some quite aggressively which obviously scares a lot of fellows who were probably wussies any way. Or as Arnold called them girly men.

Fascinating your assertion that after centuries of male domination how all of a sudden women are oppresors, though for the last few decades they have been asserting themselves more and some quite aggressively which obviously scares a lot of fellows who were probably wussies any way. Or as Arnold called them girly men.

Girly men don't worry us, but what is obvious is there are women attempting to impose matriarchal dominance on our society and they do it through liberal ideas

Like what Clete? What liberal ideas? What conservative ideas do they undermine?

Status quo, Tal

What does that even mean Clete? Patriarchy is the status quo and that shouldn't change? Explain please.

Surely I don't need to explain the order of things

Oh please explain the order of things.

What binds all the victims together is a web of intersectionality .G
roups of people with a perceived common identity have intragroup differences. When those differences clash it is inevitable that even though both think they are victims it becomes clear that one of them become oppressors . As an example ;homophobia is a problem in the black community. Think I'm wrong ? How is Mayor Pete doing with the blacks ?

He had his problems in his job as mayor of South Bend Tom (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/25/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-lawsuit-police-shooting), so not sure if you can blame his lack of support by blacks on just his sexual preference. Maybe that's another strike against him, I don't know, but he is doing better with his outreach to black groups of which there aren't that many opportunities for in Iowa. Or NH for that matter.

I know this can get confusing . But woke and intersectionality are the rage on college campus these days . There is even a calculator to determine your degree of intersectionality and how you can become more woke .
https://intersectionalityscore.com/?from=g_keywords&keyword=intersectionality&adposition=1o1&source=google&device=c&ad=2

and how would a Black straight mayor fare with the exact same set of circumstances to deal with ? I forgot to add that under intersectionality Mayor Pete is probably doing better with the Black Gay voters

I forgot about this ....the perfect example. Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris clashed in a debate over the fact that he was blaming the fact that he was gay for his poor showing with the Black electorate .Eventually the perceived victim becomes perceived oppressor .[https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/11/26/black-lgbtq-activists-split-over-harris-buttigieg-spat/

Are you shopping for another candidate since yours dropped out?

Are you shopping for another candidate since yours dropped out?

No but I think you will be soon

Tom may be looking for an alternative to the dufus, but I just have to wait and see who emerges. Between the dufus and a dem the dem is the no brainer choice.

Tom may be looking for an alternative to the dufus, but I just have to wait and see who emerges. Between the dufus and a dem the dem is the no brainer choice.
Yes you would have to have no brain to choice one

Are you shopping for another candidate since yours dropped out?

None I can see. I may write in as I did last election.

have fun with goofy

Why not just hold your nose and vote for the dem Tom?

show me a Dem worthy of consideration, As much as I don't like Trump ;he is still better than anyone else in the field . So if I had to"hold my nose " to vote for someone ,it would be Trump.

Another conservative with liberal derangement disorder. Folks we seem to be in the middle of a huge epidemic that has swept the country of which there is no known cure.

Talaniman: I think the epidemic you reference is call "GREAT ECONOMY"! Remember the little rat on acid that worked for Clinton named James Carville? He said during the Lewinsky Hearings "Nobody cares about all this Lewinsky mess! Its the ECONOMY STUPID!" W

When the economy is good, nobody is changing the horse in the middle of the race: they will ride it until it stops!

The economy is good but we're shooting and killing each other now that tRump encourages us to disrespect and hate each other.

W.G.: We have ALWAYS been shooting and killing each other....Chicago, President Obama's town, is the worse for shooting and killing but nobody talks about it because its Black on Black crime. People are also killing each other with knives. Our citizens are also be strangled to death. There are even others who are poisoning other people. Besides the automobile accidents, we also have people using automobiles to run people over...ON PURPOSE! What I am telling you is this: People were killing each other in Biblical times......God's Son was murdered by other people.....God told us that we would kill each other: Killing isn't going to stop anytime soon. The idea that the left is going to use a few crazies to condemn firearms and remove citizens rights to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment is entirely disgusting.

W.G.: We have ALWAYS been shooting and killing each other....Chicago, President Obama's town, is the worse for shooting and killing but nobody talks about it because its Black on Black crime. People are also killing each other with knives. Our citizens are also be strangled to death. There are even others who are poisoning other people. Besides the automobile accidents, we also have people using automobiles to run people over...ON PURPOSE! What I am telling you is this: People were killing each other in Biblical times......God's Son was murdered by other people.....God told us that we would kill each other: Killing isn't going to stop anytime soon. The idea that the left is going to use a few crazies to condemn firearms and remove citizens rights to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment is entirely disgusting.
Yes, we have but nowadays the level of disrespect toward each other is mindboggling. And customers and even employees screaming at people speaking Spanish to go back to their country because "in America we speak English". Like, what???? No we don't want them to. That's the beauty of this country, that all cultures and languages are welcome here -- or USED TO BE before a certain person became president.

Read the newspaper, V7. Listen to the news. I am so glad I no longer drive and go to the mall and grocery shop and go to movies and eat out at restaurants. The level of incivility and lack of respect are shameful!!!! Then, let these idiots have guns??? Yeah, right....

Hello Vac, nice rant on the ills of the big city, and the root cause is a huge contraction of economic opportunities by consumers. Tight budgets and lack of revenue produces the squallor and lost revenue that produces those people that have to kill each other trying to hsutle that dollar, but we also have those many rural areas that ain't got no money either which we never hear about and the finances is as dire there as the big city. Amazing how we can always pick those negative headlines from some admittedly bad places and broadbrush an exaggerated picture of gloom and doom, yet ever fail to address the root cause of financial extraction and lack of a financial plan to address the challenge.

Now we have Tom and Clete blaming woman for complaining about the bad behavior of men, like how dare they.

Demonrat spin, why can't we complain about the bad behaviour of women?

Demonrat spin, why can't we complain about the bad behaviour of women?
Because then, to be perfectly fair, we'd have to talk about the bad behavior of men. And the room would continue to spin.

Because then, to be perfectly fair, we'd have to talk about the bad behavior of men. And the room would continue to spin.

Yes but it would be fair

Being fair gets you a few nights on the couch, or in the dog house, if the dog lets you in.

My point exactly

to be fair ;I am not blaming anyone . it is what it is . I was in fact one of the original feminists . I don't think anyone should get special treatment based on gender .

But with intersectionalism and wokeness ;Feminists have turned on each other creating new oppressors and victims (.and I dont even want to bring up the transformer factor where anyone can be any gender they "feel " they are . Imagine that conflict ! . You see it all the time now with men who feel they are women winning women sports events ) . The experiences of white feminist women are different from non-white . The 'Metoo' movement is too white privileged . This is where Kristen Gilibrand's campaign backfired .She tweeted "
The Future is Female ,Intersectional Powered in our belief in one anotherAnd we’re just getting started "

But that had been the rally cry of the lesbian movement and Gilibrand had no business claiming such oppression . So the responses to the tweet were overwhelming negative . She knew she stepped in it . In an effort to salvage something out of it ,she went to CNN and said she was misunderstood ;that all she meant was
“Please include the ladies in the future, because they’re not really included today.” To the intersectional audience ,women of privilege like Gilibrand were already included . Her husband was a successful venture capitalist How could she share the same experiences with minority or lesbian or transformer feminists ?There isn't even any glass ceilings for her to break except one . There hasn't been a female President . So of course her big complaint to CNN was that the top Dem candidates for President were white men.

The problem is that she is demonstrably a phoney. Before her born again wokenss she was a gun loving ,big tobacco supporting ,stepford wife until she became a political opportunist . She centered her campaign on racial justice and the fight against sexual assault. Fluent in wokeness, Gillibrand hoped to win over the most progressive, social justice minded Democrats. But she never broke away from the pack because .....well she was the victim .

More like fake empathy for real victims Tom, because that's what turned people off the most. True politician looking for a raise.

to be fair ;I am not blaming anyone . it is what it is . I was in fact one of the original feminists . I don't think anyone should get special treatment based on gender .

A somewhat confused statement there, you are for feminists who are bent on the domination of men and yet you don't think women should have special treatment

I said feminist not femiNazi

Maybe some women are bent on dominating men, just as some men think they are entitled to dominate women, but that's a small group on either side since most of us can agree females have the same rights as men within their own responsibilities. It can get confusing whose who and what's what sometimes even to the point of SHOCKING, but all humans are equal under the law regardless of that other stuff, so what's the problem?

Don't forget this whole notion of wokeness and intersectionalism is a liberal fad that is hot in college studies . What I say on this issue is pure mockery . But my point is also sound . Gillibrand thinks she is a woke person . But intersectionalism; dissecting the population into ever smaller interest groups, by definition creates more victims and oppressors .

Point taken but does that also innclude the real vicyims of oppressors that happen to be women? Mockery or not using just one small narrow example such as your senator and her failed attempts to gain traction on her bid for president doesn't make your broader case for liberal ideas or intersectionalism. Re victimize maybe, but oppresors may be a stretch.

I have brought up Gillibrand . I also brought up the Harris v Mayor Pete feud . Now we have Evita v Sanders redux Evita recently made the claim that Bolshevik Bernie's supporters and a bunch of testosterone induced misogynists
who spend all day trolling his opponents online. “It’s his online Bernie bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women,” Now does anyone seriously think that Bernie is some kind of woman haters ;or that his supporters are Neanderthal members of the he-man woman haters club ?

https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-da66a/images/stencil/500x659/products/19614/28573/heman1__70185.1527278255.jpg?c=2

Evita
implied there’s some equivalence between Sanders and Trump, saying: “We want, hopefully, to elect a president who’s going to try to bring us together, and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, demeaning, degrading behavior that we’ve seen from this current administration.” But yeah . Bernie is not woke enough or he would reign in any of his supporters who attack his women opponents .

woke I ain't, awake I is

Sen Warren held a pow wow and announced that she promises to
fill half of her Cabinet with "women and 'nonbinary 'people" . Classic intersectional wokeness .During December's debate she promised
to "go to the Rose Garden once every year to read the names of transgender women, of people of color, who have been killed in the past year."

Recently Evita joined the attack Joe Biden campaign that Warren and Sanders have been tag teaming . Well actually Sanders was saying there was some
corruption " in the Biden clan. But as the wet noodle that he is ;he backed down when Biden challenged him. So he and Warren must've added a pretty shekel or two the the Clintoon Foundation to enlist Evita .

You know the rules Tom, one man one vote, so guess what, one woman one vote applies, and there are more women than men so just do the math. Men have always done whatever it takes to get elected so why are you surprised that women would not adopt the same strategy. Seems to work.

I'm a late comer to this thread having just read Tom's opening post. You absolutely nailed it. The Kavanaugh hearing was a travesty. This business of female worship has become the new national religion. When Warren pledges to read the names of women and the "non-binaries" who have been killed, but then leaves out the men, it's a classic liberal "feel-good" moment, and yet is actually gender prejudice cloaked in morality. What's amazing is to think of how many brain dead democrats will actually pony up good money to help this woman get elected. She's just another HC in that she's an incompetent pol who would never make it if she was a man. She can only appeal to her gender. She has no other electable quality.

So what? Any dem but the dufus. He cheated the last election, and is trying to cheat on the next one.

He cheated the last election, and is trying to cheat on the next one.Rumor mill.

He cheats at everything even golf.

The sad thing is back in the day before she decided to run ,she had some reasonable economic positions worth debate and consideration .Her book ' The Two Income Trap'was a rejection of a “quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model.” She was a true believer in Reaganomics . She was in fact a registered Republican until 1996 .

Her early academic work emphasized the efficiency of free markets .
One of her first papers as a full-time professor at the University of Houston
she argued that utility companies were over-regulated. She would never take that position today.



Her 'road to Damascus ' conversion came hen she was on a commission to reform bankruptcy laws. It was there that she concocted the blue print that became the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I guess she evolved about the money thing in America Tom. Why hold that against her?

"conversions " happen . She went from sound economic theory to a Marxist kook who is probably more extreme than Bolshevik Bernie. She has a history of being a phony who abused Afirmative Action admission policies by making the false claim of minority status . Anyone who legitimately could qualify should be offended by her abuse of the system .

No doubt that during an election year everybody is dealing with everything they have ever done being magnified and amplified. The longer you've been around the more stuff you have to get smeared with. I mean the small case of POSSIBLE neopotism by old Joe is sucking a lot of oxygen from the room while the dufus is defending himself on the national stage.

Just saying there's plenty of election stuff to talk about and who knows what will stick or not, and what will come next? Personally I think the Bloomberg effect will be the biggest story for the dems because socialist Bernie is still socialist Bernie and the young dems revel in it, even as Warren and Saunders are stuck in DC, sipping milk.

Demo POTUS candidates are all radical leftists. America doesn't need communism cloaked as idealism: Its the same old Marxist song: The Demo candidate watermelon is green on the outside and red as hell on the inside.

The dufus didn't win the popular vote last time and barely squeaked by in the EC. Now everybody knows what they're getting and to be REAL, those communist lefty radicals don't look as bad standing next to the dufus.

So you're perfectly willing to vote for "those communist lefty radicals"?

YUP, without hesitation or remorse. Whoever wins the dem nomination. If the plan A works we impeach the dufus, send Pence back to Indiana and anoint Pelosi to fill out the term.

There is talk of exiling the dufus and his whole administration to Russia, but Vlad may not stand for that!

You do realize that Pence would become pres if Trump is impeached?

I am beyond amazed to hear any American admit a willingness to vote for a communist, and even shocked to consider that it is you saying it.

Maybe I don't put much stock into right wing talking points. Not like I haven't heard it all before you know. Or maybe I am old enough to tell the difference between reality and BS!

Either way you righties gave us the dufus in the first place so maybe your credibility ain't all that reliable.

Either way you righties gave us the dufus in the first place so maybe your credibility ain't all that reliable.I'm not sure I believe that the words "credible" and "politician" can go together. I think all you can go on are past performance and what they say they will do, realizing that part of what they say they will do will never get done. Honesty seems to be put way back on the rear burner.

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb200123c20200123015030.jpg

You do realize that Pence would become pres if Trump is impeached?

Trump HAS BEEN impeached. Whachu bin watchin' on TV, Willis?

Trump HAS BEEN impeached. Whachu bin watchin' on TV, Willis? Semantics

Well, go ahead and relish the Impeachment of Trump because you won't be laughing long: Trump will become the FIRST IMPEACHED PRESIDENT TO WIN ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL TERM!

The left is petty: SO PETTY!

Well, go ahead and relish the Impeachment of Trump because you won't be laughing long: Trump will become the FIRST IMPEACHED PRESIDENT TO WIN ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL TERM!

The left is petty: SO PETTY!
I'm not left; I'm a Republican. Trump will lose the election if he hasn't had a psychotic break yet. He makes less and less sense every day.

I'm not left;If your comments on this board genuinely reflect who you are, then you're thoroughly left. You're to the left of anyone else on this board I can think of, and that's really saying something. Your unending praise of Obama and HC speaks volumes.

If your comments on this board genuinely reflect who you are, then you're thoroughly left. You're to the left of anyone else on this board I can think of, and that's really saying something. Your unending praise of Obama and HC speaks volumes.
I have never praised Hillary and only once or twice have mentioned Obama, mostly in defense of lies about him by others.

As far as required vasectomies, I never said they'd be demanded by the government. You added that tidbit.

As far as required vasectomies, I never said they'd be demanded by the government. You added that tidbit.Yeah. It would be a voluntary program? So who would "require" (your word) them to be done? Come on. It was an outrageous, extreme left-wing suggestion. Like I have said, I most fervently hope that the dem nominee will pick it up and run with it. You can be sure that no conservative will.

Yeah. It would be a voluntary program? So who would "require" (your word) them to be done? Come on. It was an outrageous, extreme left-wing suggestion. Like I have said, I most fervently hope that the dem nominee will pick it up and run with it. You can be sure that no conservative will.
It would be required by the adults in a family who realize how out of control young men can get. Those adults would be backed by the AMA, APA, and most religious groups. Just think of the angst you'd be spared! No more pregnancies out of wedlock, thus no more abortions!

It would be required by the adults in a family who realize how out of control young men can get. Those adults would be backed by the AMA, APA, and most religious groups. Just think of the angst you'd be spared! No more pregnancies out of wedlock, thus no more abortions!What a wonderful fantasy world you must live in. So you really believe that parents will force their teen age boys to have a vasectomy in the hope, possibly vain, that it can be reversed? Please, please have the dem nominee pick up this idea. It would be the most bizarre, irrational idea to come on the political scene in a long time and perhaps ever. You MUST press that person to adopt this. Please!!! Consider it to be an early birthday gift for me.

And that's not to mention a simple question. Why aren't parents doing it now? And how would you guarantee that sexually active women would only choose these sterilized men?

I can only assume this is meant to be a joke. For your sake, I hope it's true.

What a wonderful fantasy world you must live in. So you really believe that parents will force their teen age boys to have a vasectomy in the hope, possibly vain, that it can be reversed? Please, please have the dem nominee pick up this idea. It would be the most bizarre, irrational idea to come on the political scene in a long time and perhaps ever. You MUST press that person to adopt this. Please!!! Consider it to be an early birthday gift for me.

And that's not to mention a simple question. Why aren't parents doing it now? And how would you guarantee that sexually active women would only choose these sterilized men?

I can only assume this is meant to be a joke. For your sake, I hope it's true.
Why oh why must you always drag politics into everything???

ALL males would be sterilized until marriage. "Sexually active women" wouldn't be sexually active (and wouldn't get pregnant).

ALL males would be sterilized until marriage. "Sexually active women" wouldn't be sexually active (and wouldn't get pregnant).This is just too funny. The gov won't be mandating this, and yet everyone is just going to wake up one morning and say, "Honey, let's take our son to the doc and get the big cut done." And all women are suddenly going to become chaste.

Have you already called the dems and given them this plan? If not, then do so tonight. I think it's a GREAT idea.

This is just too funny. The gov won't be mandating this, and yet everyone is just going to wake up one morning and say, "Honey, let's take our son to the doc and get the big cut done." And all women are suddenly going to become chaste.
Hey, the title of this thread is "I am woke."

There will be organizing done. And big rewards for compliance. (P.S. It's actually a little cut.)

How could women NOT be chaste? And that's what you want, isn't it?


Have you already called the dems and given them this plan? If not, then do so tonight. I think it's a GREAT idea.
Actually, this fits in with the Republican agenda. All those evangelicals will be dancing in the streets when they find out there won't be any more abortions!

Like I said. Please, please call Bernie and Pocahontas and clue them in to this. It'd be a big winning item...for Trump.

Like I said. Please, please call Bernie and Pocahontas and clue them in to this. It'd be a big winning item...for Trump.
Trump's all for it! He figures it'll whittle down the competition for him and other older guys!

Trump's all for it! He figures it'll whittle down the competition for him and other older guys!Why must you always bring politics into it?

Why must you always bring politics into it?
To counter your political rant:
"Like I said. Please, please call Bernie and Pocahontas and clue them in to this. It'd be a big winning item...for Trump."

righteousness exaults a nation and abortion isn't righteousness. make the connection

righteousness exaults a nation and abortion isn't righteousness. make the connectionVery sell said and applicable to both our situations.

Very sell said and applicable to both our situations.

perhaps

Like abortion is the only problem this or any nation has. You won't solve that by just preaching about it. Your biggest problem though as I see it is nobody is listening very closely to what you're saying, or just not buying into it for whatever reason.

Where did we, U.S. and the world, go astray in thinking it was just another day at the office in terms of being O.K. to kill babies? There are some amongst us that believe this shows a level of enlightenment in a population...that this is somehow natural, normal behavior. NOWHERE IN NATURE IS IT NORMAL TO ABORT BABIES. The whole concept violates NATURAL LAW AND THE LAWS OF NATURE. I am not even talking any moral part or religious aspect of the argument. The ABORTION concept is something that is inherently wrong based on NATURAL LAW. The National Socialist (some of the worse murders of all time) even condemned abortion because it violated Natural Law, upon which their ideology was based.

Where did we, U.S. and the world, go astray in thinking it was just another day at the office in terms of being O.K. to kill babies?Well said. How did we get to the place where we think, "I'll just go to the "clinic" and get rid of this pesky little nuisance, and then I can get on with having fun and enjoying myself?"

Where did we, U.S. and the world, go astray in thinking it was just another day at the office in terms of being O.K. to kill babies? There are some amongst us that believe this shows a level of enlightenment in a population...that this is somehow natural, normal behavior. NOWHERE IN NATURE IS IT NORMAL TO ABORT BABIES. The whole concept violates NATURAL LAW AND THE LAWS OF NATURE. I am not even talking any moral part or religious aspect of the argument. The ABORTION concept is something that is inherently wrong based on NATURAL LAW. The National Socialist (some of the worse murders of all time) even condemned abortion because it violated Natural Law, upon which their ideology was based.

Technology, gains in better techniques of health care and changing attitudes among people in general has led to many changes and abortion is just one among many in todays reality. No longer are we just sheeple to be led by our leaders, told what to do and how what's right and what's wrong divided by ideology and geography, and ruled by one opinion, and castigated for daring to be different. All sorts of people and groups are making themselves and what they want known and are willing to fight for their god given rights and acceptance to live as they wish within the reasonable boundaries of good behavior. LOL, Vac, our history of wars and conquest is a violation of natural laws and the law of nature, by your definition, and we see where that has gotten us. Heck just invading another land because we have the army has always been with us and still is today and whole populations still suffer for it.

To put abortion at the head and as a cause is simply rather narrow minded and ignores every thing else going on around us which is mind boggling in size and scope. LOL, even racist use the violation of natural laws to justify exclusion and discrimination of another race simply based on race and there is no shortage of other examples to justify narrow thinking and bad behavior toward another human. Gays coming out of the closet, having the rights to marriage is another. So given the law of nature has so many definitions and interpretations is it a valid claim to make for anything? For sure though if you disagree with such a proclamation conflicts and wars are the inevitable outcome unless we find a better way.

Some will never ever even consider looking.


Well said. How did we get to the place where we think, "I'll just go to the "clinic" and get rid of this pesky little nuisance, and then I can get on with having fun and enjoying myself?"

Maybe true in some cases, but I doubt in enough cases to say its a majority reason, but it fits your narrative so understandable you give it more credence than it may deserve.

Talaniman: Good points! I know racist use the Natural Laws and Laws Of Nature as justification for their sicknesses of mind, definitely true. A lot of their vile hatred is rooted in the simple fact that they don't like to see different races, for lack of a better word. crossbreed: the thought of interracial love disgust them....but the fact is that this idea of race mixing being unnatural is, in and of itself, a departure of Natural Law! Different races have an inherent desire within their psyches to be attracted to other races! Even the Racist that I have known have demonstrated to me a profound attraction to women of the very race that they supposedly despise! You can see why these racist become so miserable: they are entirely conflicted by their own internal struggles! No wonder they are so angry: Their own "TABOO" desires drive these people bonkers...its insane!

But on the subject of Abortion: Short of the cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy or the cases of rape, agreeing that women can have these procedure done just because they feel like it is something I have a hard time accepting.

You don't have to accept that abortions are safe and readily available for all women my friend, but you should accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion, and it's been shown time and again that females with both a family already and resources of private insurance and the knowledge of their bodies are very willing to not allow pregnancies to continue and have made that decision very early in the process. Most women make that decision early in the process.

Bottomline is we should never put all women in the same barrel of using abortion to keep havin fun and recognize the difference between abuser and users. Obviously I have listened to a lot of stories and opinions in my life. You do not have to agree with a different view of things to listen with an open mind, just to understand the different view of things and I think that applies to many things not just abortions.

If you are free to not have an abortion if you find yourself pregnant unintentionally, so should everyone be given that choice. It's more the first law of nature that applies and that's SURVIVAL that makes the need to breed such a hot topic and all that goes with it. I understand it very well and am content to live and let live. LOL, most females I have talked to over the years has never considered abortion as an option no matter the situation or circumstances. Amazing ain't it?

ignores every thing else going on around us which is mind boggling in size and scope.What do you know of that is more "mind boggling in size and scope" than the death of nearly a million innocents a year?


You don't have to accept that abortions are safe and readily available for all women my friend, but you should accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion, and it's been shown time and again that females with both a family already and resources of private insurance and the knowledge of their bodies are very willing to not allow pregnancies to continue and have made that decision very early in the process. Most women make that decision early in the process.

Bottomline is we should never put all women in the same barrel of using abortion to keep havin fun and recognize the difference between abuser and users.That would make perfectly good sense if we were talking about face lifts, tummy tucks, hair coloring, or a myriad of other elective procedures. When you consider that the only way to have an abortion is to kill the human being living in the woman's womb, and usually in a sickening and violent manner, then it changes everything.


It's more the first law of nature that applies and that's SURVIVAL that makes the need to breed such a hot topic and all that goes with it. I understand it very well and am content to live and let live.So human existence now just comes down to survival of the fittest? Wow. What you are really in agreement with is to live and let kill. Yet another reason I am glad I'm not a liberal dem.

What do you know of that is more "mind boggling in size and scope" than the death of nearly a million innocents a year?
Yes, all those children and babies caged at our southern border! Shame on us!

That would make perfectly good sense if we were talking about face lifts, tummy tucks, hair coloring, or a myriad of other elective procedures. When you consider that the only way to have an abortion is to kill the human being living in the woman's womb, and usually in a sickening and violent manner, then it changes everything.
Nope, not "usually in a violent and sickening manner." It used to be that way when Grandma or Aunt Mabel helped their younger female relatives, but now the deed is done with a pill taken during the first trimester or by the fourth month at the latest. Third-trimester abortions are done when the mother's life is in grave danger. No woman in her right mind would wait until then to get an abortion. Apparently, you've never carried and birthed a child. Those nine months are not a pleasure trip!

I have not read all the abortion tangents. To connect this to intersectionality my question is ,was Margaret Sanger a racist or a feminist ,or both ?
Sanger spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and openly wrote about it in her autobiography.
Her eugenics promoted the concept that working class and women of color had to be sterilized or raise multiple children …..or off them . Knowing her inherent racism then how can a person of color or a woke person support her 'Planned Parenthood' ?

Yes, all those children and babies caged at our southern border! Shame on us!You really equate that with a million human lives a year gone? "Shame on us", but not for a million lives lost a year? Wow. What a committed liberal you have become. Your callous disregard for human life is astonishing.


Nope, not "usually in a violent and sickening manner." It used to be that way when Grandma or Aunt Mabel helped their younger female relatives, but now the deed is done with a pill taken during the first trimester or by the fourth month at the latest. Third-trimester abortions are done when the mother's life is in grave danger. No woman in her right mind would wait until then to get an abortion. Apparently, you've never carried and birthed a child. Those nine months are not a pleasure trip!

"The deed is done." What a sickening characterization. The pill is given up to ten weeks. After that it's vacuum aspiration, D&C, or D&E. They are unspeakably violent and involve tearing the baby's body apart to kill and remove it. The third trimester, which is brutal beyond belief, is the worst. Perhaps you can explain to us why it would be necessary to kill the baby before, or during, delivery to save the mother's life.

So I guess its fine for you that you take all of this so casually. It is not fine for the 900,000 human lives lost. I feel so sorry for you. Your liberal philosophies have overridden your good sense. Any confessing Christian who can be so casual about nearly a million lives a year gone up in smoke is fully deserving of pity

I have not read all the abortion tangents. To connect this to intersectionality my question is ,was Margaret Sanger a racist or a feminist ,or both ?
Sanger spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and openly wrote about it in her autobiography.
Her eugenics promoted the concept that working class and women of color had to be sterilized or raise multiple children …..or off them . Knowing her inherent racism then how can a person of color or a woke person support her 'Planned Parenthood' ?



I Think the difference is being forced by government, or anyone else, and having a choice.

I Think the difference is being forced by government, or anyone else, and having a choice.The baby has no choice. It is guilty of being inconvenient.

murder is murder . One cannot make that choice unless the government allows mass murder infanticide .

Margaret Sanger was absolutely a racist, and I mean a real one. She is greatly admired and fawned upon by Hillary Clinton, and that's a fact.

Why in the name of hell does anyone act surprised that leftist would support unadulterated abortion? It is clear why: 1) Leftist support abortion BECAUSE the babies being aborted are mostly from non-minority sectors of our society so the effect of abortion is such that the decline of the White population assist in giving more leverage to the minority sectors AND enhancing future Democrat vote totals and 2) The left supports euthanasia of the elderly and mentally handicapped and physically handicapped. I know many will take issue with what I said here but those are absolute truths, cold simple facts: Why else would killing White babies be fine but killing minority babies be wrong unless that were the case? Don't want to believe or admit that the left supports euthanasia? Well, how in the name of hell do you explain OBAMA'S BOY, Rahm Emmanuel, and his brother, Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel, being big proponents of Government Sponsored Euthanasia? The left really is O.K. with a lot killing.

1) Leftist support abortion BECAUSE the babies being aborted are mostly from non-minority sectors of our society so the effect of abortion is such that the decline of the White population assist in giving more leverage to the minority sectors AND enhancing future Democrat vote totals
And since the white race rules, and, in particular, white males are supreme, we need to make every effort to bring white fetuses to term;


2) The left supports euthanasia of the elderly and mentally handicapped and physically handicapped.
Sorry, Charlie. Your "argument" is totally bizarre and makes absolutely no sense. The left does NOT support that. I live in a heavily populated area, am old and worthless with a lot of old and worthless friends and acquaintances. I am connected with relatives, friends, and acquaintances in the Northeast, South, Northwest, and Southwest. Never has anyone tossed around the topic of euthanasia of oldsters, etc. In fact, it is very, very difficult to get euthanized.

Euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. Assisted suicide /assisted death is legal in Washington, D.C. and the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Maine (Starting January 1, 2020), New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington; its status is disputed in Montana.

And try to sign up for assisted suicide! To begin with, you have to become a legal resident of that state. By the time that happens, you're either already dead or have changed your mind.

That was a pretty wild statement even for you Vacster!

And since the white race rules, and, in particular, white males are supreme, we need to make every effort to bring white fetuses to term;An incredible 40% of abortions are performed on black women, so your statement is entirely false. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D


am old and worthless with a lot of old and worthless friends and acquaintances.Perhaps the core of our disagreements. There are no worthless human beings.

An incredible 40% of abortions are performed on black women, so your statement is entirely false. Perhaps the core of our disagreements. There are no worthless human beings.
Wow! I'm going to frame that statement! From a righty on top of it!


Perhaps the core of our disagreements. There are no worthless human beings.
Oh, but that's the message I got from V7. Old people are worthless and are being snuffed.

Oh, but that's the message I got from V7. Old people are worthless and are being snuffed.Actually, my quote came from you. "am old and worthless with a lot of old and worthless friends and acquaintances." That, and your noncommital stance on abortion sort of wraps it up.

Actually, my quote came from you. "am old and worthless with a lot of old and worthless friends and acquaintances." That, and your noncommital stance on abortion sort of wraps it up.
Again, I was responding to V7's comments, using his language, and being a bit droll. Sorry all that went over your head.

Again, I was responding to V7's comments, using his language, and being a bit droll. Sorry all that went over your head.In other words, you said something that you do not wish to be held responsible for. It was all v7's fault and my fault. How convenient.

In other words, you said something that you do not wish to be held responsible for. It was all v7's fault and my fault. How convenient.
Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. :)

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. :)I doubtless need that from time to time.

W.G.: That IS NOT WHAT I SAID....what I said was this: Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel, a leftist and the brother of Obama's favorite guy Rahm Emmanuel, is a big time ambassador for EUTHANASIA and wrote a paper on its virtues that promoted snuffing out older people and handicapped people! Euthanasia is promoted by the left, no doubt about it. I find it really weird that a Jewish man would promote euthanasia after what the Jewish people experienced during WWII but that didn't stop Emmanuel from promoting his vile, dehumanizing views.

W.G.: That IS NOT WHAT I SAID....what I said was this: Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel, a leftist and the brother of Obama's favorite guy Rahm Emmanuel, is a big time ambassador for EUTHANASIA and wrote a paper on its virtues that promoted snuffing out older people and handicapped people! Euthanasia is promoted by the left, no doubt about it. I find it really weird that a Jewish man would promote euthanasia after what the Jewish people experienced during WWII but that didn't stop Emmanuel from promoting his vile, dehumanizing views.
Left or right, can a very ill or disabled person in his/her right mind choose euthanasia? If no, why not?

Left or right, can a very ill or disabled person in his/her right mind choose euthanasia? If no, why not?Even better questions. When you say euthanasia, don't you actually mean suicide? If a person has to be very ill or disabled, then why wouldn't a healthy person who is sick of living be able to kill him/her self? Why limit it to the sick and disabled?

Assisted suicide is the term

Assisted suicide is the term So suicide is OK as long as someone assists you in it? Could a healthy person who is sick of living commit suicide so long as someone assists them?

So suicide is OK as long as someone assists you in it? Could a healthy person who is sick of living commit suicide so long as someone assists them?
Sounds like you're not up on this topic. You would have to establish residency in a state that offers assisted suicide. Here's this note:

In order to be approved for Physician Assisted Death, which is currently legal only in Oregon and Washington, the terminally ill patient must:
-be eighteen years of age or older
-be a resident of Oregon or Washington
-be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself
-be diagnosed with a terminal disease which will result in the end of the patient's life within six months.
Two physicians must agree that these criteria have been met.

http://physician-assisted-suicide.weebly.com/requirements-for-pas.html

I know what the law says. I'm asking you about the moral foundation of the law. Why allow some people but not everyone? If it's OK to commit suicide when you have a terminal disease, then why not when you have a disease that is very painful but not terminal, or why not when suffering from chronic depression? And why would you need a doctor to assist you? Why not just jump off a cliff, or shoot yourself, or swim out into the deep waters and drown? Why be so restrictive? Can you answer that? Isn't this just legalized suicide made to appear "civilized" so we can still look at ourselves in the mirror and feel moral?

As a society, there have to be set rules, otherwise the "SYSTEM" breaks down. This is exactly the tactic of anarchist and communists: Upend the institutions and break down the order of societies to take control.

It's obviously okay in two states if certain requirements are met. States can set their own laws and define their own morality for themselves. Laws are subject to change and morality redefined by that state. You can question or complain about someone else's morality, but can you make them adopt your morality? I suppose you could try, but the final outcome is up to them.

States can set their own laws and define their own morality for themselves. Laws are subject to change and morality redefined by that state. You can question or complain about someone else's morality, but can you make them adopt your morality? I suppose you could try, but the final outcome is up to them.If we adopt the view that morality is changeable, then we are on a slippery slope. The static nature of morals is exactly what Jefferson appealed to in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." His entire line of reasoning falls apart instantly if someone eliminates the "Creator", and that is exactly what we are doing.

Endowed by THEIR Creator. Do we all have the right to approach the relationship with the Creator that we understand in our own way? Can that relationship not GROW as we GROW?

Endowed by THEIR Creator.His appeal was to "all men", and that he considers there to be one specific creator is clear by the fact that he capitalized "Creator". You have to the right to approach any god you want, but Jefferson's appeal was to "unalienable" rights and "self-evident" truth. He did not regard those to be changeable, and thus his appeal was that, since God gave those rights, it is not in the proper authority of governments to take them away. It was a brilliant appeal that we are now casting aside.

We know Jefferson didn't mean slaves since he owned them, but that changed eventually and gradually over time as we grew as a nation didn't it? There you go.

And why? Because the moral values in the Declaration were considered to be permanent and not subject to the whims of people.

Anything in America can be voted on, and changed and thats how change occurs. With or without a civil war. Come on you know better than that. Wonder why Jefferson didn't say endowed by THE Creator instead of THEIR Creator? Because whatever you interpret as your Creator is VALID, even if you convert from one religion to another, no matter the name you give your Creator.

The appeal was to ALL, not some even if we are still working on a more perfect union, meaning a works in progress. Something to strive for.

And why? Because the moral values in the Declaration were considered to be permanent and not subject to the whims of people.
Was Jefferson's Creator the same as his slaves' Creator?

Anything in America can be voted on, and changed and thats how change occurs. With or without a civil war. Come on you know better than that. Wonder why Jefferson didn't say endowed by THE Creator instead of THEIR Creator? Because whatever you interpret as your Creator is VALID, even if you convert from one religion to another, no matter the name you give your Creator.

The appeal was to ALL, not some even if we are still working on a more perfect union, meaning a works in progress. Something to strive for.You MUST pay closer attention. You are referring to changes in law. I am referring to changes in our moral standard. It is the latter that Jefferson attempted to etch in stone.


Was Jefferson's Creator the same as his slaves' Creator?It was the very moral standard that Jefferson and the founding fathers established that formed the basis of the appeal for the end of slavery, so your objection is actually an affirmation of the genius of Jefferson. Thank God people in that time understood the difference between changing laws and changing our moral standards.

Do you think the Creator of unborn children, which you never, ever stir yourself in the slightest amount to defend, is the same as Jefferson's?

Do you think the Creator of unborn children, which you never, ever stir yourself in the slightest amount to defend, is the same as Jefferson's?
Please answer my question. A Yes or No will suffice.

(The Creator has handed over to men and women the ability to create children.)

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.
I wasn't judging anyone, V7!!!!! I am wondering if Jefferson's Creator is the same one as the slaves' Creator. Is YOUR Creator the same one as the slaves' Creator? -- or Jefferson's Creator?

"Enlightenment"? meaning we've improved our understanding of the Creator? As I watch and read the news, it doesn't seem like there has been much improvement.

JL/

You MUST pay closer attention. You are referring to changes in law. I am referring to changes in our moral standard. It is the latter that Jefferson attempted to etch in stone.

Is not ones laws the reflection of morality on the national level? I submit yes, especially given the cultural, racial, and religious diversity of it's people. EQUAL protection, freedom, justice under OUR law.

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

They are humans and while it was a good thing they established, it had flaws as most human endeavors are flawed. Divinely endowed though or beyond reproach is rather a stretch but they done good for the times and circumstances we were in and every generation that followed should be inspired to keep strive to fulfill the promise of a more perfect union.

No one is attacking them at all as it was a different time but as we evolve we can be better can't we?

Please answer my question. A Yes or No will suffice.Yes.


Is not ones laws the reflection of morality on the national level? I submit yes, especially given the cultural, racial, and religious diversity of it's people. EQUAL protection, freedom, justice under OUR law.Laws are a reflection of some standard of morality. That's why it's important to be careful what standard you use.

Or what lawmakers you elect.

Or what lawmakers you elect.Absolutely.

Talaniman: You ith the nail on the head and I agree! We are in a constant state of evolution....and we can "get better" and we MUST get better because, otherwise, we will spin out of control.

W.G.: I get overly defensive about the Founding Fathers.....my apologies for misinterpreting what you were asking about: I was wrong!

Man that Dershowitz is one helluva defense lawyer. He is wrong in this case but that's who I would want as my lawyer defending me. Then we get one of them lying arseholes like Cipollone to close it out ARGH!!

Talaniman: Got to agree about Dershowitz and his legal prowess: He is a legal "mental giant"! I don't know why there has been such a drastic change in Dershowitz: He used to be a huge Civil Liberties advocate and was know to be very liberal and a darling of the left....not to stereotype him or anybody or any Jews, in general, but he is a New Yorker and "most" (again, not stereotyping) New York Jews are liberal or, at least Democrats.....The only thing I can come up with is that he has stated before that he is always felt a need to "help the underdog" and, maybe, he somehow feels Trump is the underdog in the Impeachment proceedings.

Maybe Dersh is trying to stand for something which transcends mere politics. Maybe he is standing for the rule of law and is willing to follow that where it leads him.

Last I heard he is still doing quite well with his pet projects and causes and in this case he is defending his client with the same zeal he always has in the past, and I have confidence he always will in the future, no matter who his client is. Defending the dufus with the line that you cannot impeach him no matter what he has done or what the evidence shows is an HUGE stretch of the imagination.

That's why he can command the big bucks though, and earns every cent of it, and MORE!

Defending the dufus with the line that you cannot impeach him no matter what he has done or what the evidence shows is an HUGE stretch of the imagination.The only imagination being stretched is yours. Dersh never said that.

jlisenbe: Believe you are correct: Dershowitz said that anything that the President did was not of a High Crimes and Misdemeanor variety.

It was a paraphrase dude, but I'll see if I can find the quote just for you. (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/confederacy-of-dunces-joe-scarborough-absolutely-destroys-trumps-legal-defense-team/)



"If a president, any president, were to have done what The Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. Let me repeat: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said on the Senate floor.


It also makes a lie of his Carnival of Dunces claim that there are no first hand witnesses that heard the dufus say that his hold was tied to the investigations he wanted the Ukrainians to do for him. In case you cannot see it on your own, it's also EVIDENCE of a QPQ.



Democratic House managers have argued that Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden, a potential 2020 rival, and his son in exchange for the release of U.S. aid to Ukraine and a White House meeting. Democrats said he did it for his own personal gain, to "cheat" in the election.


See how easy that was?



jlisenbe: Believe you are correct: Dershowitz said that anything that the President did was not of a High Crimes and Misdemeanor variety.

A good lawyer will say anything to defend his client.

Democrats said he did it for his own personal gain, to "cheat" in the election.Key phrase is "Democrats said".


A good lawyer will say anything to defend his client.Just like a good House dem will say anything to convict Trump.

He did cheat but no repub will ever call him out no matter what because he will whoop their a$$es on twitter or Fox. Everybody knows he runs repubs with an iron fist and they better do as they are told and stay in line.

The dems have the law on their side now where as the dufus went out side of it. You do know the USA and Ukraine have treaty (https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf) en force to cover an investigate an American in their country don't you, so the real question has always been why the dufus didn't just file a formal request with the Ukraine prosecutors into Biden like they told him too? That would have been LEGAL! (https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ukraine-prosecutor-general-barr-made-no-contact-to-request-joint-investigation-of-biden/)

Must be hard for a crook to do anything the legal way huh?

He did cheatHow?

As for the treaty, I get that, but there is nothing that would prevent an American pres from requesting an investigation.


Must be hard for a crook to do anything the legal way huh?Didn't seem to bother you with HC. Why are you bothered now?

How?

"Do us a favor though". You have a problem seeing evidence, and you seem to have aproblem with recognizing cheating too.


As for the treaty, I get that, but there is nothing that would prevent an American pres from requesting an investigation

To much to ask to do it the right way without cheating?


Didn't seem to bother you with HC. Why are you bothered now?

HC didn't bother us the way the dufus does so, we are dealing with what's bothering us NOW. You have a problem with that?

"Do us a favor though". You have a problem seeing evidence, and you seem to have aproblem with recognizing cheating too.So asking the Uke pres to do our country a favor is illegal???


To much to ask to do it the right way without cheating?Now remember. You have yet to demonstrate that he cheated on anything.


HC didn't bother us the way the dufus does so, we are dealing with what's bothering us NOW. You have a problem with that?I have a problem with your selective outrage, and with the fact that you could so happily vote for someone like her, and then want to be so critical of Trump. It's the ole double standard. Correct???

So asking the Uke pres to do our country a favor is illegal???

The illegal part was asking them to announce the investigation after promises and assurances didn't work, and putting a hold on lawfully authorized funds that he previously approved without notifying congress of his intentions. That also goes for the process laid out ratified and signed for pursuing an investigation by an American working in Ukraine, that also wasn't done. # illegal acts though not hanging offenses that show a pattern of intentional wrongdoing in that he was advised of the correct procedures.


Now remember. You have yet to demonstrate that he cheated on anything.

See above. To add the illegal notion he wanted a public announcement into investigations by a foreign government to smear Biden and influence voters, when he had a perfectly legal option, is the definition of cheating.


I have a problem with your selective outrage, and with the fact that you could so happily vote for someone like her, and then want to be so critical of Trump. It's the ole double standard. Correct???

The same selective outraged the right and conservative used against Obama and HC, while letting the dufus run hog wild with his big bad bully mouth and behavior. Shows we are both human and are flawed.

The illegal part was asking them to announce the investigation after promises and assurances didn't work, and putting a hold on lawfully authorized funds that he previously approved without notifying congress of his intentions. That also goes for the process laid out ratified and signed for pursuing an investigation by an American working in Ukraine, that also wasn't done. # illegal acts though not hanging offenses that show a pattern of intentional wrongdoing in that he was advised of the correct procedures.You have a small and largely irrelevant point about the withholding of funds in violation of what the Congress wanted, but the rest is just silly. There is nothing in the law that says a pres cannot ask a foreign leader to investigate a possibly illegal act. And you certainly have not demonstrated "cheating". That's what people do on tests, or husbands do to their wives. What standing in law does that term even have?


he wanted a public announcement into investigations by a foreign government to smear Biden and influence voters, when he had a perfectly legal option, is the definition of cheating.Maybe, but you have no proof of that.


The same selective outraged the right and conservative used against Obama and HC, while letting the dufus run hog wild with his big bad bully mouth and behavior. Shows we are both human and are flawed.The difference is in policy. I despised Obama's welfare state, deficit spending, support of gay marriage, liberal judges, and over regulation that constrained the economy. Trump, on the other hand, became the first and only pres to speak at the annual March for Life recently. I despise his deficit spending, but in many other areas of policy he is doing well, so I tolerate his big mouth.

You act like Obama and HC were saints and Trump is the devil. That's ridiculous. That's where your double standard is so obvious.

You don't want to know what Bolton wrote in his book JL? I mean how long could that take and would it make a difference if it was indeed his tesimony that the dufus told him to with hold the money until the Ukes announced publicly to investigate the Biden's and Crowdstrike?

I think it would make no difference. It would be his testimony as opposed to the testimony of both the Uke PM and FM that there was no quid pro quo at all and the testimony of Trump (and others) that it did not exist. The investigation did not take place. The Ukes got their money. The overwhelming balance of evidence and testimony swings decisively in Trump's favor.

I would like the time taken to find out then judge for myself who I beleived. 3 of every four Americans agree, so should not the majority rule?

I have no problem with witnesses. I'd love to see Schiff, Pelosi, HB, and JB called for sure. Go ahead and call in Bolden. Let's see what he actually has to say. You do realize that all we have so far is the NYT (hardly a neutral source) paraphrase of his remarks. Call in the whistle blower. Go for it.

How in the name of good sense can anyone believe Bolton? Why did he have to "WRITE A BOOK" to get his story to have any interest? Is it not obvious to all that WRITING A BOOK IS TO MAKE $$$s, that is the plan! If what he had to say had all the HONARABLE, VIRTUOUS AND CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPACTFUL QUALITIES that the Demos want to pretend this NeoCon has to say, why didn't the Demos call him up when they were doing their little IMPEACHMENT gig? If a man is so virtuous and has something so important and earth shattering to say, why does he wait so damn late in the game to say it? I can already see that this is another NOTHING BURGER!

Why did he have to "WRITE A BOOK" to get his story to have any interest? Is it not obvious to all that WRITING A BOOK IS TO MAKE $$$s
Sorta like tRump? -- 'ceptin' he didn't even write it but still got the money from it.


Is it not obvious to all that WRITING A BOOK IS TO MAKE $$$s
No, that's not necessarily true. I wrote (and was published by legit publishers) three books on Texas history and three journal articles on a Chicago landmark and on Asperger's Syndrome in order to educate and inform. Making money was the least of my concerns.

I think Bolton is worth listening to, just like I think the Uke PM and FM are worth listening to. Of course we have no idea what Bolton actually knows or what he really said. We do know exactly what the PM and FM said.

WG, what were you book and article titles? I'd like to take a look at them. Congrats to you for being a published author.

W.G.: Now, now: You know Bolton is not that HONOR BOUND.....the left has always hated Bolton...but, somehow, the left now is holding him up as the pillar of righteousness and integrity! COME ON!!!

W.G.: Now, now: You know Bolton is not that HONOR BOUND.....the left has always hated Bolton...but, somehow, the left now is holding him up as the pillar of righteousness and integrity! COME ON!!!
He was writing that book long before the word impeachment was in any conversation. What did he witness and what did he hear that tRump doesn't want him to testify about?

He was writing that book long before the word impeachment was in any conversation. What did he witness and what did he hear that tRump doesn't want him to testify about?

The work of the NSA is secret. Bolton knows this, this is just payback and extortion

Latest news out about Bolton is not good for him.

The dufusites are on a mission.

jlisenbe: Yes, just heard: Bolton already was interviewed, some time ago, and said that "TRUMP CALLS TO UKRAINE" were all good, nothing bad....he is contradicting himself and looking like he is trying to get revenge for getting his arse fired....Bolton is a NeoCon and a warmongerer, Trump picked up on his proclivities and told him to hit the bricks....I don't think Trump, for all his other personality traits, is a war lover or even a POTUS who wants a huge U.S. Military footprint.

.I don't think Trump, for all his other personality traits, is a war lover or even a POTUS who wants a huge U.S. Military footprint.I am all in favor of reducing our overseas military commitments. Time to let the rest of the world start picking up more of the tab.

I suppose raising the rates of our military being a security service for the world is a good idea on a fiscal level. The rich nations can afford it, but some of those poorer ones cannot so too bad for them.

Which poorer ones? France? Japan? Germany? England? We must cut spending and defense is a good place to start.

Talaniman: No, I don't think anybody is saying to "abandon" the poorer nations but get some of these richer nations (GERMANY!) to get up off their dead arses and help out a little more. We might even want to think about some country like Brazil getting more involved. Too bad Vlad and Russia have tainted their image so bad that nobody trust them anymore but they ought to be relied on more, too but maybe that is asking too much.

Which poorer ones? France? Japan? Germany? England? We must cut spending and defense is a good place to start.

That's what Clinton did to start balancing the budget, but that was before Bush came along with two off the books wars, and rich guy tax cuts for 10 years. Let me know when that changes. Let me know when you cut those poor NATO countries out too. The ones you cited don't qualify as poor and making them pony up is what's been done for a few decades now with only sporadic success.


Talaniman: No, I don't think anybody is saying to "abandon" the poorer nations but get some of these richer nations (GERMANY!) to get up off their dead arses and help out a little more. We might even want to think about some country like Brazil getting more involved. Too bad Vlad and Russia have tainted their image so bad that nobody trust them anymore but they ought to be relied on more, too but maybe that is asking too much.

Don't forget the rat infested central American triangle.

Mayor Pete is not woke enough to know that using the word"heartland" is a dog whistle racist code for white supremacy . he tweeted :



In the face of unprecedented challenges, we need a president whose vision was shaped by the American Heartland rather than the ineffective Washington politics we’ve come to know and expect.


https://twitter.com/impeachremove/status/1223003040158011393/photo/1

and this was the reaction :


Pete i'm going to ask you to stop using American Heartland == ethical.Can I tell you why?Andy Griffith was never realIndiana had a higher KKK participation than any other state.Nothing about it being DC makes it evil, it's who we send and when we stop paying attention.


Pete, Flyover Country isn't the American Heartland. It's just the place people flyover on their way to somewhere they actually want to go.

You know this is a dog whistle, right?

The coasts are where the true knowledge is at, not the backward inner part of the country.

and so on

That's what Clinton did to start balancing the budget, but that was before Bush came along with two off the books wars, and rich guy tax cuts for 10 years. Let me know when that changes. Let me know when you cut those poor NATO countries out too. The ones you cited don't qualify as poor and making them pony up is what's been done for a few decades now with only sporadic success.



Don't forget the rat infested central American triangle.

Why you think you have to defend Germany and France is a mystery, but other European countries have been known to be unable to resist invasion, so your defense of them is noble, but what do you need to defend central america from?

and rich guy tax cuts for 10 years. Let me know when that changesIt changed under Obama. Result: National debt doubled in only 8 years.


The ones you cited don't qualify as poor and making them pony up is what's been done for a few decades now with only sporadic success.Well, that was kind of the whole point.

but what do you need to defend central america from? It is not defending Central America as much as defending our soft underbelly .

It is not defending Central America as much as defending our soft underbelly .

Surely you can do that with secure borders and convincing Mexico it is in their own interests to police their borders, cartels, etc

Paraclete: Having a SENSIBLE Border Protection Plan that makes takes into consideration "cases" and doesn't just broad-brush everything as being a "common-lot" would be a good start. We don't need to have any more photos of crying children snatched from their mothers. Personally, I don't want the United States in the business of ripping babies away from mothers....enough is enough.

We need to ask "how" and "why someone from Nicaragua is allowed to "pass-through" Mexico to reach the U.S. Border. That crap needs to cease.

The real big problem with Mexico: If THE MEXICANS don't have the intestinal fortitude and the NATIONAL WILL to EXTERMINATE THE DRUG CARTELS then the U.S. sure as hell can convince MEXICO to do much of anything! MEXICO should be fighting the damned cartels like their national lives depended upon it....because, you know what? MEXICO's EXISTENCE AS NATION DOES DEPEND UPON DEFEATING THESE WORTHLESS CARTELS! It makes me want to ask MEXICO: WHAT IS YOUR DAMN PROBLEM?

Paraclete: Having a SENSIBLE Border Protection Plan that makes takes into consideration "cases" and doesn't just broad-brush everything as being a "common-lot" would be a good start. We don't need to have any more photos of crying children snatched from their mothers. Personally, I don't want the United States in the business of ripping babies away from mothers....enough is enough.

We need to ask "how" and "why someone from Nicaragua is allowed to "pass-through" Mexico to reach the U.S. Border. That crap needs to cease.

The real big problem with Mexico: If THE MEXICANS don't have the intestinal fortitude and the NATIONAL WILL to EXTERMINATE THE DRUG CARTELS then the U.S. sure as hell can convince MEXICO to do much of anything! MEXICO should be fighting the damned cartels like their national lives depended upon it....because, you know what? MEXICO's EXISTENCE AS NATION DOES DEPEND UPON DEFEATING THESE WORTHLESS CARTELS! It makes me want to ask MEXICO: WHAT IS YOUR DAMN PROBLEM?
So Vac let me ask you, why can a US citizen cross into Mexico, or a Canadian transit the US to Mexico and someone from the south not do the same thing, providing they have the required documentation. The drug problem you speak of is a US problem, stop taking drugs and the problem goes away

So Vac let me ask you, why can a US citizen cross into Mexico, or a Canadian transit the US to Mexico and someone from the south not do the same thing, providing they have the required documentation. Who said they couldn't? Both Mexicans and Canadians are able to enter the U.S. through border check points.

Who said they couldn't? Both Mexicans and Canadians are able to enter the U.S. through border check points.

It appears the list is longer than that

OK. Put it this way. As a general rule, ANYONE can enter across our southern border checkpoint IF that person has the proper documentation which will generally be a passport. The same thing, incidentally, is true for Americans entering Mexico. The rules are a little more lax in regards to the Canadian border.

Paraclete: I wasn't speaking of those with "PROPER" paperwork (Visa, Passport, etc.)...I was speaking of illegals.

As far as drugs are concerned: Drugs stop "flowing" across the U.S. border when the U.S. begins to EXECUTE DRUG DEALS AND DRUG TRAFFICERS! I know that idea shakes people up a bit but if you want to shake this sh$&tty tree to its core, you start killing these vermin and they will begin to thing twice about trying to pull this kind of crap: MAKE THEM HAVE SOME "SKIN" IN THE GAME.

We cannot even deal with our own war on drugs so expecting more of the Mexicans is a bit disingenuous, and it's much more complex on both countries that are working together. Like drugs only come from the south, and these cartels are dummies and thugs. Just the opposite, they are high tech business dudes always coming up with some very sophisticated ways to move product, even if the war with other cartels is extremely violent, and publicized.

As far as drugs are concerned: Drugs stop "flowing" across the U.S. border when the U.S. begins to EXECUTE DRUG DEALS AND DRUG TRAFFICERS!
Nooooooooo, the US eliminates OUR drug traffickers and thus eliminates the market here in OUR country.

the US eliminates OUR drug traffickersHow do you propose we do that?

How do you propose we do that?
The same way we eliminate foreign drug traffickers.

The same way we eliminate foreign drug traffickers.How is that done?

How is that done?
Aha! And there's the rub!

You said, "The same way we eliminate foreign drug traffickers," but now you don't seem to know how that's done. Strange. Still, I'm not certain of answers myself. There is too, too much money involved in it. Singapore has very little trouble with drugs but their legal consequences are pretty drastic. Maybe that's the way to go?

no it is a short boat ride from Central America to the American southern border .

You said, "The same way we eliminate foreign drug traffickers," but now you don't seem to know how that's done. Strange. Still, I'm not certain of answers myself. There is too, too much money involved in it. Singapore has very little trouble with drugs but their legal consequences are pretty drastic. Maybe that's the way to go?
Solution for eliminating drug traffickers: chop off their hands!

Solution for eliminating drug traffickers: chop off their hands!

No, forced feeding with the crap they traffic, Philippines has the right idea, no tolerance, no jail, summary execution

There will always be suppliers as long as there is demand and high profits.

Yes until we gain a society where these things are not tolerated

There will always be suppliers as long as there is demand and high profits.Not in Singapore.

Philippines has it right: Summarily execute the trafficers and dealers. Harsh but effective. Duterte is the model for what it takes to stop the B.S. of drugs: Keep killing them until they stop or there are no more of them left.

Here is the pro-life commercial that Fox refused to run for the Super Bowl. They had space for a pro-gay commercial, but not for a pro life commercial. Which direction do you think the censorship is running?


https://lifenews-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/facesofchoicesuperbowlad.mp4?_=1

jlisenbe: Entirely disgusting of FOX.....just can't get past the fact that people think offing babies is normal right in any way.

jlisenbe: Entirely disgusting of FOX.....just can't get past the fact that people think offing babies is normal right in any way.

It's not normal it is just another expression of selfishness and irresponsibility

Boycott! Take a knee when the anthem plays. Refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple. All sorts of ways to make a company serve you against their will.

Boycott! Wish I could, but I already watch next to no football or network television.

Take a knee when the anthem plays. Completely dumb idea. The U.S. did not make that decision, so what does the Anthem have to do with it?

Refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple.What???

All sorts of ways to make a company serve you against their will.Maybe you can come up with one.

Your cause, your actions, unless you are a paying customer!

at least they didn't play this PETA monstrosity .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XbCoOIEJ7s&fbclid=IwAR3SGs4acVFkJQnZZr1vvX87YWykYTdUyFOU3lp7a EV1QetvDfk7vrpxRwY

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html

during a SB Party ? so what ? I was resting on my sofa sucking down an adult beverage during the anthem .Others were looking at a stop watch to see if they won their prop bet . Kneeling is a deliberate gesture designed to make an inappropriate point at a sporting event . To have the animals of the forest doing it in an ad designed to elevate the rights of the animals is to ignore what really happens in the wild . Here is what REALLY happens when an eagle sees a rabbit .
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/eagle-attacks-fox-attacked-rabbit-55402726?fbclid=IwAR2UBMlo-xEp4DUD2BpmeWCWrlJfz0MDRXFi65scp305RJc4Aq8DSh3tAEU

Aw geez Tom, we know reality and only some people take kneeling as disrespectful, just the opposite actually, just ask any king. You have to admit though party or not, we do expect more from our leader who blasts others for such disrespect don't you? At the very least shouldn't we treat the dufus and Colin the same way?

Or maybe you give the dufus a free pass because he is above everything right?

Aw geez Tom, we know reality and only some people take kneeling as disrespectful, just the opposite actually, just ask any king.So now we're going to conflate the disrespect of kneeling intended towards the flag and country with the respect and honor of kneeling intended towards a king? I don't think that one is going to fly.

As to treating the pres the same way as CK, when Trump takes a knee during the playing of the anthem, then you can just step back and enjoy the dishonor that will be rained heavily upon him by conservatives. However, don't hold your breath waiting on that to happen.

No: Stop -footing around the heart of the subject: This kneeling sh&t is EXTREMELY dishonorable to the nation and the veterans of this nation....in fact, it is a big middle finger given to veterans: The problem is, those that are kneeling couldn't carry the bags of those that have served. The kneeling that goes on is a total disgrace. And then you Hayseed and Bounce not getting up off their arses during the National Anthem Of The United States: They can go straight to hell, as far as I am concerned.

The President is becoming much more Presidential in his three years in office: If you don't like him, that is fine and it is your right not to like him but you still need to show the Office Of The President Of The United States a great degree of respect.

Nothing about the dufus goofing off during the national anthem conservatives?

we do expect more from our leader
fair point . I think he has ADHD myself .

we do expect more from our leaderYeah, that's a fair enough point, I don't see it as a big hairy deal, but it would certainly have been better if he had been more respectful.

fair point . I think he has ADHD myself .
And is narcissistic....

Narcissistic was the word I was searching for, thanks WG. ADHD sounds right, as well as an exaggerated sense of self entitlement, and a lack of empathy for others, among other things that makes him a borderline criminal capable of doing bad things especially if he feels pressed. He could definitely be on meds though, for impulse control, and a muzzle would help tremendously.

No: Stop -footing around the heart of the subject: This kneeling sh&t is EXTREMELY dishonorable to the nation and the veterans of this nation....
Colin Kaepernick’s protest was NEVER about disrespecting the soldiers or disrespecting this great nation. It’s about the lack of respect that people in this country have for people of darker skin.

Colin Kaepernick’s protest was NEVER about disrespecting the soldiers or disrespecting this great nation. It’s about the lack of respect that people in this country have for people of darker skin.Might be true in Chicago, but not down here. Here, a person generally gets the respect he/she has earned. Besides, for CK to be trying to draw attention to that while he, a black man, is earning millions of dollars is about as fake as it can get.

Narcissistic was the word I was searching for, thanks WG. ADHD sounds right, as well as an exaggerated sense of self entitlement, and a lack of empathy for others, among other things that makes him a borderline criminal capable of doing bad things especially if he feels pressed. He could definitely be on meds though, for impulse control, and a muzzle would help tremendously.
You're welcome, tal. I can suggest even more DSM disorders that fit.

Wonder if he'll be doing his important-speech snuffling tonight. Just can't be without that Adderall! (Overdose symptoms may include restlessness, tremor, muscle twitches, rapid breathing, confusion....)

Colin Kaepernick’s protest was NEVER about disrespecting the soldiers or disrespecting this great nation. It’s about the lack of respect that people in this country have for people of darker skin. actually it was about "police violence" initially . It was later on when his true motive came out that his real motive was to advance his own brand as his NFL career was advancing towards the bench .



Wonder if he'll be doing his important-speech snuffling tonight. If I were him I would be in your face gloating . But I think he will sound very Presidential and the Dems in Congress will look petty and small.

actually it was about "police violence" initially . It was later on when his true motive came out that his real motive was to advance his own brand as his NFL career was advancing towards the bench .
You must not be brown or black.


If I were him I would be in your face gloating . But I think he will sound very Presidential and the Dems in Congress will look petty and small.
He has NEVER looked or acted presidential! Always high and mighty smirky.

Might be true in Chicago, but not down here. Here, a person generally gets the respect he/she has earned. Besides, for CK to be trying to draw attention to that while he, a black man, is earning millions of dollars is about as fake as it can get.

Try and tell a white dude about cops stopping black people and could end up dead and watch eyes glaze over. That's what taking a knee was about.


actually it was about "police violence" initially . It was later on when his true motive came out that his real motive was to advance his own brand as his NFL career was advancing towards the bench

You almost had it right but oh well.

You almost had it right but oh well.

He's done very well by being a rebel without a cause.

The NFL settled his lawsuit, and even if his success on the field was going down, he was better than most of the back ups I've seen the last few years.

The only team I think he could fit his option read skills with are the Ravens ;and they already have Vick. If he truely wants to be a QB then he should go the the XFL and demonstrate his skills in a competitive environment . His faux workout this year was pathetic . Any weekend semi-pro league QB could've done as well. Nah he knew his playing days were over when the Niners benched him for
Blaine Gabbert. Face facts . Chip Kelly decided to put a gimmick offense in for 2016 that caught the league by surprise . By 2017 every defense except maybe the Gnats knew how to beat it . The NFL adjusted to Kap and Kap did not adjust in kind. That is why he was holding the clipboard before he saw his golden opportunity to exploit a cause .

Try and tell a white dude about cops stopping black people and could end up dead and watch eyes glaze over. That's what taking a knee was about.All the usual BLM propaganda.

All the usual BLM propaganda.

Why am I not surprised at your closed minded response. BLM has always been around by other names and generations, but the same struggle. Your bigotry is but a good example why the struggle continues.

Bigotry or honesty? That's the question. Too many liberals think that if someone disagrees with their conclusion, then they surely must be bigoted. That is, of course, a form of bigotry itself, so I never pull back because some possibly bigoted person wants to claim I am bigoted. I just try and let the facts fall where they may.

I'm a realist JL, and you should listen and learn about the black experience instead shooting your mouth off about what you feel but don't know. The reality is we are not that color blind society and we are still far from realizing that perfect union. Glean your facts from that perspective and you could learn things you didn't know and not sound like an uninformed bigot.

You know nothing of BLM. That's a FACT! Don't mistake ignorance for honesty. Honesty would be you know nothing about BLM.

Talaniman: Generally speaking, ALL Southern Caucasian men know a LOT MORE about the Black Experience that what they are given credit for...and GENERALLY a whole hell of a lot more than do the Caucasian men of the North.....and that is because we grew up in close proximity to, generally worked with, ate with, often played with, and sometimes fought with Blacks, the same as we did other Whites.....You got to give jlisenbe some credit! He taught school: He can hardly be called a bigot.

and that is because we grew up in close proximity to, generally worked with, ate with, often played with, and sometimes fought with Blacks, the same as we did other Whites.....You got to give jlisenbe some credit! He taught school: He can hardly be called a bigot.
JL is around my age. The South I was born in and grew up in had segregated towns and cities, segregated schools, segregated churches, segregated workplaces. I rarely saw a Black person except the women who were mammies and domestics at friends' homes, plus the men who were garbage collectors, gas jockeys, and parking lot attendants -- all low-paying service jobs. I never saw a Black child while shopping or at the park or at a movie theater. Oh, and Blacks were forbidden from swimming in public pools.

JL is around my age. The South I was born in and grew up in had segregated towns and cities, segregated schools, segregated churches, segregated workplaces. I rarely saw a Black person except the women who were mammies and domestics at friends' homes, plus the men who were garbage collectors, gas jockeys, and parking lot attendants -- all low-paying service jobs. I never saw a Black child while shopping or at the park or at a movie theater. Oh, and Blacks were forbidden from swimming in public pools.

Must have been bad to live in a place like that, by contrast my nation was not segregated and yet I didn't encounter a black person until well into my teens, they kept to themselves then not like now when they are in your face demanding the place back yet they have contributed little

I'm a realist JL, and you should listen and learn about the black experience instead shooting your mouth off about what you feel but don't know. The reality is we are not that color blind society and we are still far from realizing that perfect union. Glean your facts from that perspective and you could learn things you didn't know and not sound like an uninformed bigot.

You know nothing of BLM. That's a FACT! Don't mistake ignorance for honesty. Honesty would be you know nothing about BLM.There's that ole bigotry at work again. I'm a white conservative, so I must not know much about the "black experience". Right. I would agree we are not color blind. I don't think we ever will be, but the big problems afflicting the black community now are largely self inflicted.

Unlike WG, I knew a large number of black people. Never saw a "mammie" or even heard of one. Never saw a "domestic" in the sense of some sort of in-house servant. Two or three KKK folks showed up at a ballgame one time. Most of us thought they were the dumbest looking people we ever saw. Schools integrated when I was in the eleventh grade. It was largely a big nothing of an occasion. We got along well. I've worked in majority white, black, and Choctaw Indian schools as well as in furniture moving and meat packing when I was young. I was surrounded by black employees in both places and we all got along. I have supervised black employees and been supervised by black people. No big deal. People are just people.

No big deal. People are just people.

Yes jl, they are, until they choose not to be and start sticking racial tags on themselves

Not every white conservative is like you, JL, I truly wish they were but unfortunately they are NOT, and a small number are pretty mean. Until one knows who he deals with then caution applies. Sorry Clete, but you have obviously never been rudely asked what are you doing here boy enough to know who puts tags on whom.

Now what?

Not every white conservative is like you, JL, I truly wish they were but unfortunately they are NOT, and a small number are pretty mean. Until one knows who he deals with then caution applies. Sorry Clete, but you have obviously never been rudely asked what are you doing here boy enough to know who puts tags on whom.

Now what?

No tal, don't stick my nose in where it isn't wanted, but I doubt you have known a demonrat not to do that

I started to say your nose is always wanted Clete, but that may be a bit awkward, but I am always interested in your input.

Not every white conservative is like you, JL, I truly wish they were but unfortunately they are NOT, and a small number are pretty mean. Until one knows who he deals with then caution applies. I understand what you're saying. And to be clear, I am certainly not saying you are bigoted anymore than the rest of us. Most people have some prejudices. Some are justifiable/understandable and some are not. You seem to be more fair than the average guy. I do like the fact that we just let it go with each other. I think our culture needs more of these honest and open kind of exchanges as long as they don't go toxic.

So has the US woke from a bad dream, a nightmare, and found the sun shine again

Kind of depends on what side you're on.

Kind of depends on what side you're on.

either way it is a new day, and the prospect of the demonrats being led by a minority

It's an election year and our first state of 50 just had a primary or caucus to be exact and we are still stuck on those results as another state weighs in next week. Still too early to see who the dems put against the dufus.

WHOMEVER the Demo place against Trump should begin to write their CONCESSION SPEECH...NOW!!!

WHOMEVER the Demo place against Trump should begin to write their CONCESSION SPEECH...NOW!!!

The Demonrats are confused, even more so now a gay is in the lead

Now that would be a hoot. The gay gay boots the dufus. He only has 49 more states to win. Piece of cake!

Let me know when the Dems finish counting . Last I heard Bolshevik Bernie took the lead .

Now that would be a hoot. The gay gay boots the dufus. He only has 49 more states to win. Piece of cake!

No, he has to do more than that

What is the largest vote count Mayor Pete has ever had 8,515 votes . That total wouldn't be enough for him to win the dog catcher race here.

Will the Russians or Ukrainians please tell us who won in Iowa. The suspense is killing me!

What is the largest vote count Mayor Pete has ever had 8,515 votes . That total wouldn't be enough for him to win the dog catcher race here.

Yes but he is not in the race to be dog catcher, but big dog, the rules are different, with super voters and all

I will tell you who won in IOWA: TRUMP WON IN IOWA!!!